WABC Saturday oldies 7-12-08 IBOC aircheck

[LinoNYC]

http://www.sendspace.com/file/lx349q 54 mb MP3@320

I rarely hear any of this show but tonight I had a chance to record some ota iboc footage. WABC is "full scale" on the Acurian's buffer meter though all feeds are in mono. I believe that all music is direct from CD and with the exception of whatever they use for stl there shouldn't be any other sources of data compression in the chain.

This iboc feed is much better sounding then the analog although I'am sure some here will find fault with it. The ota analog has that hashy, over compressed quality that typifies many modern airchains.

Reality is that this system riding along with the FM gives AM it's best chance for survival.

Lino

 

[Chuck]

Reality is that this system riding along with the FM gives AM it's best chance for survival.

Lino

No, decent programming gives AM its greatest chance of survival. People will put up with a lot if it is something they actually want to hear. I operate a station that is "signal challenged" and I get at least one call per day that confirms that. Wave all the magic wands you want, but if the programming sucks (and it usually does) then the method of delivery is inconsequential.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Here's one LinoNYC statement I agree with:

One mo' time: The answer to radio's declining fortunes is not simply more of the same delivered by other means.

It applies to this thread.

Here is the link to his post:
http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,102607.msg806076.html#msg806076

 

[clouseau]

No, decent programming gives AM its greatest chance of survival. People will put up with a lot if it is something they actually want to hear. I operate a station that is "signal challenged" and I get at least one call per day that confirms that. Wave all the magic wands you want, but if the programming sucks (and it usually does) then the method of delivery is inconsequential.

C'mon, Chuck. AM radio programming does not totally suck. Talk works great. Why doesn't music???

BECAUSE THERE"S NO FIDELITY.

Why can you get by with an obscure format in the hinterland? Because it Sounds good when you can get it. (And be real, guy, you ain't exactly in the sticks with your translators.)

I am so tired of this AM IS COMPETITIVE stuff. You can't really believe it, do you?

Where is it happening with music?

Aside from the news talker, in YOUR market the best music AM, KGLD, is a gospel at a 1.1 12+?

Wouldn't you suppose YOU actually beat that number in the market? These numbers are old. I'd suspect you might beat them already. AM just can NOT compete outside of the spoken word. You can find a niche. You can serve that niche. And if you get to be a viable station, some FM will come and TAKE YOUR NICHE. I'm still on the record suggesting the entire AM new talk segment is less than a decade awqay from being almost all the way on FM.

KSL, WTOP, It's NOT far off.

Clouseau

 

[Savage]

I think that most here would agree that an improvement in sound quality is the key to improving AM's prospects. But the divergence comes over whether HD Radio is the answer. The problems most anti-IBOCers keep pointing to are that HD offers arguably inadequate solutions (poor coverage, lousy fake-sounding codec) while simultaneously worsening AM's fortunes for the remaining analog audience (FURTHER reduced bandwidth and unacceptable self- and adjacent-channel interference.)

It's illogical to argue that AM needs better audio, and then stubbornly promote a fix which further reduces audio quality for the existing audience - all to favor a system which has practically zero chance of widespread utilization in the marketplace for a variety of reasons. They've been enumerated before: poor receivers which are also essentially unavailable at realistic prices in retail locations, excessive costs for 90% of broadcasters, a system which is incompatible with most AM transmitting plants.

Don't attack the messenger when I say: it's pretty safe to predict that most people will never hear HD-AM radio. The system further drives away analog listeners.

So how does HD offer hope for AM's future?

 

[LinoNYC]

I think that most here would agree that an improvement in sound quality is the key to improving AM's prospects. But the divergence comes over whether HD Radio is the answer.

Any suggestions? C_Quam, A-Max, receivers with variable bandwidth have all failed to stop AM's slide into obscurity.

The problems most anti-IBOCers keep pointing to are that HD offers arguably inadequate solutions (poor coverage, lousy fake-sounding codec) while simultaneously worsening AM's fortunes for the remaining analog audience (FURTHER reduced bandwidth and unacceptable self- and adjacent-channel interference.)

It does degrade the analog, but doesn't seem to have had any effect on ratings, so I ask the one who makes these assertions: Proof?

Not according to Arbitron.

It's illogical to argue that AM needs better audio, and then stubbornly promote a fix which further reduces audio quality for the existing audience - all to favor a system which has practically zero chance of widespread utilization in the marketplace for a variety of reasons. They've been enumerated before: poor receivers which are also essentially unavailable at realistic prices in retail locations, excessive costs for 90% of broadcasters, a system which is incompatible with most AM transmitting plants.

So, by your reasoning we are left with two alternatives, Status-quo analog only. We know where that is headed. Or some out-of-band alternative which has failed elsewhere in the world and will not happen here for reasons you are well aware of.

Don't attack the messenger when I say: it's pretty safe to predict that most people will never hear HD-AM radio. The system further drives away analog listeners.

Again and for the umpteenth time:Any proof?

So how does HD offer hope for AM's future?

By your logic and self-interest, it doesn't. In my daily experience it does.

Lino

 

[Savage]

Well, Lino, paraphrasing Shakespeare: when it comes to AM radio we can all decide to either light a candle, or we can curse the darkness. We don't know about an out-of-band solution, or whether some other scheme such as AMax or C-Quam with new hi-fi AM tuners might provide answers. Largely, because they haven't been explored in today's media environment (and let's forget about the fact that these technologies failed in the 1980s and instead focus on the REASON they failed.)

One thing we DO know: HD-AM isn't the answer. Thumbs-up to the system's developers for trying. A BIG Bronx-cheer for trying to force a destructive system which doesn't work on the marketplace, to the detriment of others, and then not having the courage or the integrity to admit they were wrong.

I believe that wideband analog AM, say to 12.5 kHz, with mandated C-Quam AM Stereo, new variable-bandwidth Hi-Fi AM tuners combined with quality mass-appeal music formats on AM would breathe new life into the band. Anti-noise enforcement would have to become far more stringent. But over time people would rediscover the band once the programming you apparently loathe so much is replaced with more mainstream fare.

The debate over HD-AM becomes more moot with each passing day. The AM-IBOC train hasn't just left the station. The rails were ripped up and the station was bulldozed months ago, and they're building a Walgreens there. Hybrid analog-digital proponents can sit on the sidewalk and wag their heads about what might have been. Or we can all work together on a solution that benefits everyone, not just the anointed few.

Since politics are driving the current HD Radio disaster, I think there will have to be market-driven change at the top management at HD Radio-pushing big radio groups. The current "leaders," such as they are, will simply not admit that HD is a self-defeating flop and move on. They're too invested in it. When the stock hits the "pennies" range maybe the HD maniacs will be given the heave-ho and we can take out a clean sheet of paper and start over.

 

[LaidBackJack]

AM HD isn't going to save AM. I have several stations transmitting HD in my market, with varying powers. The one Class 4 on 1240 covers roughly 5 miles in HD in the car, less at night when HD skywave from first adjacent stations destroy it. The analog can easily be heard 10 to 15 miles day and night.

Synchronous detection and noise blanking (even DSP) in the receivers, along with greater transmitted and received bandwidth WOULD do wonders for AM. 6 khz transmitted audio on a wideband radio sounds like a telephone conversation, but 10(or more)khz audio on a truly wideband receiver sounds pretty darn good.

I'm willing to bet that some newer technology in the AM receivers would be far less expensive to implement than the HD chipset.

 

[Savage]

Of course it would, LBJ. It just hasn't been pursued because of the dogmatic (and increasingly discredited) pro-IBOC environment. We don't know the answers because the HD crowd won't allow the relevant questions to be asked.

BTW: even given the meager numbers of operating HD-AM stations, I am personally aware of one AM operator who has plans to shut his iBiquity Decepticon off forever - as soon as he can. I also had a conversation with a cluster manager of a nearby group, owned by one of the five biggest radio companies. Their engineering management - that's the COMPANY'S, not the cluster's - hates HD-AM. They agree that HD-AM is pointless, destructive, and just plain stupid.

I can't say for sure but I'd bet they're one of the big groups currently trying to wiggle out of their iBiquity deals for HD-AM. Don't take my word for it - it's been in the trades.

 

[Chuck]

C'mon, Chuck. AM radio programming does not totally suck. Talk works great. Why doesn't music???

I didn't say it all sucks. A lot of it does though, including some talk based programming. That further drives people away from AM.

Where is it happening with music?
I am so tired of this AM IS COMPETITIVE stuff. You can't really believe it, do you?

I believe it is possible to make a decent living with an AM station if you program it properly, and do your best to keep it from sounding like it is being played through a tin can. Music may or may not be an important part of that formula. Quite a few successful stations are not music based. For them, HD is unlikely to make much difference.

Aside from the news talker, in YOUR market the best music AM, KGLD, is a gospel at a 1.1 12+?

Clouseau

Well, that news talker is doing pretty well. It is also one of the better managed stations in the area. I suspect the management has a lot to do with that. At least two other AM's in the market rebroadcast a co-owned FM that plays Classic Country. Their ratings are rolled into the FM's, so it is hard to tell if anyone is really listening. Another AM in the area is simulcasting their sister FM's Classic Rock format. To me, these efforts are all just keeping the license warm. They have been that way for quite some time. Given that every car can receive both AM and FM broadcasts, which do you think people listen to, the 1000 watt AM or the 100,000 watt FM? I'm sure fidelity has a lot to do with that, but so does a lack of coverage for the AM. More importantly, all of these AM's don't offer anything different or appealing that you can't already get. There really isn’t any reason to tune them in, unless you happen to be in an area where the parent FM can’t be received. In the case of the Classic Country station, that is a distinct possibility. I suppose that helps justify the simulcast. The last I looked, it did well in the ratings.

Down in Henderson, a failing AM was recently taken over by the owner of a couple of other successful small town stations. He is running music on it. On a good radio, like a GE super radio, it is actually pleasant sounding to listen to. Since the owner has a previous track record of doing good things for small town radio, I suspect this will work as well. Interestingly his format is AC. Yep, that is music. I'm sure it will have a large dose of Swap & Shop, local news and high school sports, but it seems to be a formula that works for him.

 

[KB1OKL]

I believe that wideband analog AM, say to 12.5 kHz, with mandated C-Quam AM Stereo, new variable-bandwidth Hi-Fi AM tuners combined with quality mass-appeal music formats on AM would breathe new life into the band. Anti-noise enforcement would have to become far more stringent. But over time people would rediscover the band once the programming you apparently loathe so much is replaced with more mainstream fare.

I am currently in an internet cafe in Lima, Peru and cannot download the file you posted Lino, but as to Bob's idea about wideband C-Quam AM stereo I couldn't agree more, in fact I have a Meduci C-Quam tuner waiting at home and can't wait to try it out, the only thing it doesn't have is a variable bandwidth front end but a good tunable loop will fix that. I'm sure this impresses you greatly. ;D
As far as sucky programming I don't care for much I hear on FM either, a great song played twelve thousand times gets kind of old, even NPR is getting boring as it gets safer and safer.
IBOC makes AM sound worse, not better and it doesn't work. When I listened to that Sangien HDR-1 tuner last month right outside of Boston a whopping 20 miles from WBZ's IBOC towers in Hull, MA I was told that they couldn't receive AM IBOC there, they didn't even have the AM antenna hooked up and wouldn't open one of the plastic bags containing the loop antennas in the already open boxes (returns?) of the other two Sangiens HDR-1's they had.

 

[LinoNYC]

Well, Lino, paraphrasing Shakespeare: when it comes to AM radio we can all decide to either light a candle, or we can curse the darkness. We don't know about an out-of-band solution, or whether some other scheme such as AMax or C-Quam with new hi-fi AM tuners might provide answers. Largely, because they haven't been explored in today's media environment (and let's forget about the fact that these technologies failed in the 1980s and instead focus on the REASON they failed.)

All those alternatives I mentioned have been tried Europe and Canada are quietly dumping their obsolete Eureka system and researching in-band tech, Asia is already into that.

A-Max and C-Quam haven't been tried?!! There are still millions of vehicles on the road with C-quam and adaptive bandwidth. AM's decline didn't happen suddenly, it has been going on for over thirty years and none of these technologies made any difference.

If you think that today's media environment is more hospitable to an ancient analog technology, i guess there is not much more to talk about here.

One thing we DO know: HD-AM isn't the answer. Thumbs-up to the system's developers for trying. A BIG Bronx-cheer for trying to force a destructive system which doesn't work on the marketplace, to the detriment of others, and then not having the courage or the integrity to admit they were wrong.

AM wasn'r t even in the original concept, it was forced upon the developers and I believe subcontracted out to a company better known for defense tech.

I believe that wideband analog AM, say to 12.5 kHz, with mandated C-Quam AM Stereo, new variable-bandwidth Hi-Fi AM tuners combined with quality mass-appeal music formats on AM would breathe new life into the band.

I agree.

Anti-noise enforcement would have to become far more stringent.

If you mean smps and so-forth, forget it, not going to happen. Domestic orgin noise is not the big a problem anyway, I have 13 computers set up here, a 52" lcd and numerous crt tv's. Even when several are working at once it is only necessary to move an AM receiver 5 or 6 feet away for acceptable performance. FM multipath is another matter and iboc does fix that.

But over time people would rediscover the band once the programming you apparently loathe so much is replaced with more mainstream fare.

I "loathe" hucksters scavenging AM's corpse.

The debate over HD-AM becomes more moot with each passing day. The AM-IBOC train hasn't just left the station. The rails were ripped up and the station was bulldozed months ago, and they're building a Walgreens there. Hybrid analog-digital proponents can sit on the sidewalk and wag their heads about what might have been.

There you go again, the same old denial schtick you all ways attempt to pass off.

Or we can all work together on a solution that benefits everyone, not just the anointed few.

....And you suggest...make it something that hasn't been tried and flopped.

Lino

 

[Play Freebird]

A-Max and C-Quam haven't been tried?!! There are still millions of vehicles on the road with C-quam and adaptive bandwidth. AM's decline didn't happen suddenly, it has been going on for over thirty years and none of these technologies made any difference.

But the cost of incorporating AMAX performance into receivers is dropping rapidly, thanks to DSP technology.

Previously, manufacturers had to add extra parts like AM stereo decoder chips, wide IF filters, etc. This raised the cost of improved AM receivers to a level where they were unaffordable to the mass market, so they never had the critical mass to succeed.

However, with today's DSP, it's simply a matter of writing software to make the receiver do whatever it is you want to do -- and the results are impressive. Take, for example, the analog FM stereo performance of the Sony XDR-F1HD. And the chipset in that tuner has options like weather band and shortwave that aren't even being used -- but they could be enabled by adding antenna connectors and revising the code.

With DSP, why should the cost of an AMAX-compliant C-Quam receiver exceed that of an AM IBOC receiver? If anything, it should sell for less because iBiquity doesn't take a cut.

 

[Savage]

How could an adaptive AM receiver using DSP NOT be cheaper than an HD Radio with its mandatory iBiquity per-chip license? My understanding is that the royalty amounts to many times the actual fixed cost of the HD hardware.

And once again, Lino, you are indulging in re-writing another person's post to support your pro-HD dogma. READ MY POST. I never said "AMax and C-Quam were never tried" or anything remotely like that. I said the REASONS those technologies failed in the 1980s need to be reexamined with a view towards seeing if they offer valid solutions today. See Freebird's followup regarding DSP and how it could offer an affordable AM solution using existing tech which has been proven to work in the field, which is to be distinguished from HD, which does not.

 

[LinoNYC]

And once again, Lino, you are indulging in re-writing another person's post to support your pro-HD dogma. READ MY POST. I never said "AMax and C-Quam were never tried" or anything remotely like that. I said the REASONS those technologies failed in the 1980s need to be reexamined with a view towards seeing if they offer valid solutions today. See Freebird's followup regarding DSP and how it could offer an affordable AM solution using existing tech which has been proven to work in the field, which is to be distinguished from HD, which does not.

Oh excuse me, I must apologize. How could I have been so dense? I said "tried" -you said "explored". A world of difference, to an ad man or lawyer.

We don't know about an out-of-band solution, or whether some other scheme such as AMax or C-Quam with new hi-fi AM tuners might provide answers. Largely, because they haven't been explored in today's media environment

In fact they have been (here is another one) exposed to today's media environment Millions of AM-Amax radios were produced for autos
Some of the most rcent shown here: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kevtronics/caddie01.jpg Some GM/Lexus featured them well into the 00's.

(and let's forget about the fact that these technologies failed in the 1980s and instead focus on the REASON they failed.)

Wrong. Even the Khan system was on the air well into the 1990's ( I believe WQEW had it until Dec 1998) Correct me if wrong on this date.

C-quam/Amax were a worthy technology but they didn't address the main problems with AM nor did they change the public's perception of it, in that sense they failed. Compare that to the 47 year old FM Multiplex system which is still going strong and the facts should be obvious.

It is pointless to argue that an analog modulation scheme for AM radio is going to fit successfully into today's media environment.

Lino

 

[Play Freebird]

C-quam/Amax were a worthy technology but they didn't address the main problems with AM nor did they change the public's perception of it, in that sense they failed. Compare that to the 47 year old FM Multiplex system which is still going strong and the facts should be obvious.

It is pointless to argue that an analog modulation scheme for AM radio is going to fit successfully into today's media environment.

So what you're saying is that the (analog) modulation scheme of FM stereo is still working fine (even though it's analog), but (analog) AM is doomed just because it's analog? Sorry, but I don't follow that logic.

If IBOC actually could solve "the main problems with AM" (rather than make false promises) you would have a valid point, but it doesn't. Let's see...

Does it extend reliable coverage?
Does it extend the broadcast hours of daytimers?
Does it allow all AM stations to maintain equal service areas day and night?
Does it eliminate the need for multitower directional arrays requiring large parcels of land and tons of steel and copper?
Is it even compatible with all stations using these arrays?
Is it truly effective against noise caused by arcing power lines and lightning?
No, no, no, no, no, and no

Does it extend audio frequency response?
In a way, if you like your upper harmonics synthesized. But I would rather investigate what can be done to improve analog AM audio using DSP techniques.

Does it create new interference problems that didn't exist before?
Yes, in a big way!

This reminds me of the false argument (served up by various IBOC proponents) that broadcasters will be forced to go digital because electronic component manufacturers are planning to eliminate production of analog parts. Hopefully that nonsense has finally been put to rest by the latest generation of DSP-based radios, which (if properly designed) can receive analog signals better than ever before.

 

[LinoNYC]

C-quam/Amax were a worthy technology but they didn't address the main problems with AM nor did they change the public's perception of it, in that sense they failed. Compare that to the 47 year old FM Multiplex system which is still going strong and the facts should be obvious.

It is pointless to argue that an analog modulation scheme for AM radio is going to fit successfully into today's media environment.

So what you're saying is that the (analog) modulation scheme of FM stereo is still working fine (even though it's analog), but (analog) AM is doomed just because it's analog? Sorry, but I don't follow that logic.

The answer to your attempt at circular argument is clear in that quote of mine.

To make it simpler: FM has proven successful because it has caught and maintained popularity with it's target consumers. AM stereo has failed because after many years and different iterations it did not.

If iboc fares the same, you can then call it a failure.

As for the "analog" point, ask youself how much sense it makes to try and re-introduce a minor alteration to a nearly 90 year old tech which has been on an inexorable slide downward for the past 35 years.


Lino

 

[LaidBackJack]

Savage, Take comfort in the knowledge that there are thousands of us, and a handful of them.

 

[Play Freebird]

As for the "analog" point, ask youself how much sense it makes to try and re-introduce a minor alteration to a nearly 90 year old tech which has been on an inexorable slide downward for the past 35 years.

Just because a technology is 90+ years old doesn't mean it's finished. Take wind energy for example, which went into a long decline following the catastrophe on Grandpa's Knob, but is thriving today.

But I think the technical challenges of local AM broadcasting have more to do with propagation and noise characteristics of the medium-wave band than the form of modulation. That's why I'm disappointed that AM IBOC was ever offered as the "cure-all", rather than an out-of-band VHF or UHF digital transition plan. Let's not make matters worse by trashing the band with more noise.

 

[LinoNYC]

That's why I'm disappointed that AM IBOC was ever offered as the "cure-all", rather than an out-of-band VHF or UHF digital transition plan

So, you still think an out of band solution is viable?

Go talk to the Europeans and Canadians about the viability of sustaining an out-of-band service today.

It sounded like a good idea in the early 1990's D.O.A. today.

They are all looking at in-band now.

Lino